The People of the State of New York ex rel. Coplin Yaras, Respondent, against Richard J. Kinnaw, as Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation of the City of Albany, et al., Appellants

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Coplin Yaras, Respondent, against Richard J. Kinnaw, as Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation of the City of Albany, et al., Appellants. [MAJORITY] Motion for affirmance of a final order of the Supreme Court, Albany County, Special Term, and cross application for other relief. In pursuance of the direction of the court (ante, p. 815) further proof on the question of the ratio of assessed values in the city of Albany to true values has been taken before an Official Referee who has reported the record of the further proof and his findings. The relator contends, as it was contended when the ease was here before, that when samples are selected under former section 293 of the Tax Law, no' other proof may be offered on the question of equality in the tax district, except actual sales. The section itself deals with overvalued as well as unequal assessments and the purpose of the statute is not to exclude other proof on equality or valuation, but to limit the range of proof on other parcels which might become very large in number. (See discussion in People ex rel. Beynolds v. Kinnaw, 276 App. Div. 718.) The Official Referee was therefore justified in taking opinion and other evidence beyond the sample parcels, and in making findings and recommendations not restricted by these samples or by sales. When due weight is given to the proof in relation to the sample parcels before the Special Term, and the proof based on official findings and opinion evidence, as well as on the sales offered by each party, the resulting average indicates that the ratio of assessed value to true value in the city of Albany for 1948 was about 85%. The final order of the Special Term is modified by reversing so much thereof on the law and the facts as finds that the ratio of assessed value in the entire tax district to true value is 72.4%. The court makes a new finding on the record that such ratio is 85%, and the final order, as thus modified, is affirmed, without costs. Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur; Foster, P. J., 'dissents and votes to affirm the original order. [See post, p. 1155.]